I don't really care either way. Polanski's crime wasn't that big a deal, but then he fled prosecution. Since he's 76 and the crime happened over 30 years ago, I seriously doubt he's going to get anything more than a menial sentence, if that. Depending on what lawyers he hires he might well get off scot-free.

This might in fact work out well for him. He should have dealt with this 30 years ago; flight from prosecution is not a good strategy as it means you've got something hanging over your head for the rest of your life or until it's settled. Anyway, he's got lots of legal options (I understand); he can fight extradition, etc. or he can try to get the original decision overturned or reduced (he'll have to do something for fleeing, though), and he can certainly afford good lawyers. The French are wankers, though; they value this guy so much, why haven't they been working on a pardon for him all these years?

There is this interview that the girl in question gave a few years back, which I'd argue doesn't reflect well on Polanski:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/24/lkl.00.html)

Nations have treaties whereby fugitives from one country are incarcerated by the other when they flee the first for the second. The issue is complicated; the French don't take action (it seems) when when the original offense is not illegal in France (I don't think the idea of statutory rape is even possible there). Polanski has been careful not to travel to countries that would extradite him to the U.S. and apparently he's traveled to Switzerland several times before. I've read that since 2005 there was a push on to have him picked up; anyway, the Swiss this time knew well in advance he was coming.

Personally, I think it's all a PR stunt. The new 2-disc Chinatown is coming out (I think my copy arrives tomorrow) and Polanski knows just how to drum up some extra sales.

Personally, I think it's all a PR stunt. The new 2-disc Chinatown is coming out (I think my copy arrives tomorrow) and Polanski knows just how to drum up some extra sales.

Whether you meant this comment to be a joke or not, you make an excellent point.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the whole affair.Does he deserve to be punished for the crime. Yes.Time doesn't change that. I don't care what kind of Stockholm syndrome the girl has gone through over the past several years.

But on the other hand...

Does anybody really want to pay taxes for something that should have been settled 31 years ago?

P.S. that Larry King guy is such a joke.Did you know about Sharon Tate? She must have died a few months prior to this, right?

What!?Does that old fart bother to do any research before he interviews somebody?The Manson murders happened nearly a decade prior to Polanski's rape.And what does that event have to do with the more current one?

Jeez. He gets on my nerves.Just get off the fuckin' airwaves already.

How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders... man can't even trust his own pants!

It is strange how things were reported differently at the time. I remember having read that the rape was performed during a party...And no mention was made of the fact that the girl wasn't unexperienced sexually. Then, yes, Polanski himself is not an agreeable character as to certain matters, as he himself admitted. Still, after 30 years, all this makes no sense at all, if not as a PR stunt as pointed out by jenkins.

My understanding is that Switzerland only signed this extradition treaty with the US about twelve years ago. So it's possible that this is the first time Polanski has been in the country since then, and they took the opportunity to nab him.

At this point, I don't so much care about the case as the moronic defenses of Polanski that I'm hearing constantly, from both boneheaded IMDBers and significant real-world personages.

If the defense of Polanski consisted of:

- He's 76 years old now, no real point in punishing him- This happened so long ago it doesn't really matter (although I doubt these defenses would be brought up were it a politician, or God forbid, a priest/rabbi/etc.)- Circumstances are rather murky, he and she were on drugs at the time, it's largely a he-said/she-said situation. I'd give the victim the benefit of the doubt but under the law I can see room for doubt.- The victim has more or less forgiven him (probably the strongest argument in my view- He was about to be railroaded by an ambitious prick judge and had at least some justification for flying the coop

You might make me somewhat sympathetic to your case. But instead I keep hearing arguments along the lines of:

- He's an artist, his work makes up for his crime (ANYONE really buy this!?). The argument by some that he's a BAD director and thus SHOULD be punished is equally asinine, but I find it less repugnant.- He's suffered enough through his life (which can be said of pretty much ANY criminal if you think about it)- The girl was 13, which is "old enough" (according to some people) to be responsible for her actions in that situation, even while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Alternately, pedophilia laws are unjust and stupid (which MAY be the case but to my way of thinking is irrelevant here)- Henry Kissinger and various war criminals are immune from prosecution for their crimes, why go after Polanski? (I have no use of moral equivalence in a case like this)- The crime wasn't bad at all (even though it was essentially a date rape of a much younger person)- The girl was a skank who either can't be trusted or in some sick way deserved it (not surprising coming from the misogynist mouths of IMDBers)- The American criminal justice system is crooked and/or barbaric. Whether or not this is the case, let's please not try and set up Polanski as some sort of "martyr" because he boinked a girl up the ass thirty years (which seems to be what the Hollywood elite and other directors are doing). He's not going to prison on a fabricated charge of murder or for expressing a political view, for God's sakes. This is especially stupid since Polanski is almost certainly going to serve at best a token sentence, if anything at all, given the extenuating circumstances named above.

It's really pissing me off. And if it were just IMDB morons I could buy it, but we have directors, politicians and others enlisting several of the above arguments!

This story is getting a lot of traction, and it's useful if for no other reason than it reveals who can make reasoned arguments and who can't. Polanski opted out of a process 30 years ago that was intended to resolve the issue then. As that process has now reclaimed him, he can't now use the 30-year gap as part of his defense (the process did not fail him, he failed the process). In fact, avoidance of the process is in itself an additional offense. He must resume where he left off, and in addition, answer to the flight charge.

To hold otherwise is simply to engage in special pleading. Either Polanski is a man like other men, or he is a person with a special status that allows him to disregard the rules the rest of us must live by. And as far as I know, the US does not recognize aristocratic privilege. But we live in strange times, and, as Yogi Berra famously said, predictions are really hard, especially when they're about the future.

Exactly. The statute of limitations no longer applies inasmuch as he was convicted of the crime and is a fugitive from the law. So technically, it's no longer an issue of the rape, but of him evading justice.

Quite frankly, I'm more than a bit baffled by the complete lack of morality and common sense some people are displaying here. Whether or not Polanski should be held accountable all these years later, can we at least agree that what he did is illegal and wrong? But some people won't even concede that much. Whether a pedophilia law is unjust or not (though with a 13 year old girl I'd argue the latter), the fact remains that he committed a crime. And as it runs awful close to rape to begin with, age doesn't even matter that much.

I know it's far fetched but some paper speculated that the Swiss acted now because it would please some huge American bank. The Swiss are into banks or something, I guess...

The whole affair is pretty stupid, IMO. Did he commit a crime? According to US laws, I think he did. Was it right for Polanski to flee? Legally? Hell no. Morally? I dunno. Was it right to arrest him now? Shit, I don't care. Was he stupid/careless when he got arrested after 30 years? Fuck yes. Whose the biggest loser here: the girl (now middle aged woman), Polanski or moviegoers? Guess what's my answer...

Well we don't know that, let's not throw rocks at them until we hear the whole story, rape of minors is a serious crime in my book, as it should be in everybody's. But it is a funny business all around, I must say.

Well we don't know that, let's not throw rocks at them until we hear the whole story, rape of minors is a serious crime in my book, as it should be in everybody's. But it is a funny business all around, I must say.

Rape generally it's a serious crime, not only of minors. But this last story about Polanski stinks.

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland's justice minister on Tuesday revived an effort to have filmmaker Roman Polanski extradited to the U.S., where he is wanted in a nearly 40-year-old case involving sex with a minor.

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro's office said he asked Poland's Supreme Court to annul a ruling in October by a court in Krakow which found that Polish law forbids Polanski's extradition. In November, prosecutors said they found no grounds to challenge the decision.

Ziobro took office late last year, after the ruling, as part of a new conservative government. The minister, who is also the country's chief prosecutor, argues that celebrity status is shielding Oscar-winning director Polanski in Poland, where he grew up and which he often visits.

The Krakow court's decision was at odds with a Polish-U.S. extradition agreement, Ziobro's office argued in a statement. It said that, "according to the extradition agreement, the defendant should be handed over to the United States."

The director pleaded guilty in 1977 to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl during a photo shoot in Los Angeles. In a deal with the judge, he served 42 days in prison, but then fled the U.S. fearing the judge would have him imprisoned again for much longer.

The U.S. has been seeking to bring Polanski back and put him before a court.

Last year, the Krakow judge ruling on the case found that Polanski served his punishment in confinement in the U.S., and later for 10 months — partly under house arrest — in Switzerland in 2009-2010 when the U.S. unsuccessfully sought his extradition there.

He argued that U.S. judges and prosecutors in the case violated legal procedures, broke the plea bargain in 1977, denied Polanski the right to proper defense and appeared biased.

Jan Olszewski, Polanski's lawyer in Krakow, where the filmmaker has an apartment, told The Associated Press he had contacted the director about Ziobro's decision, which "we had been expecting."

"The court's verdict stands and Mr. Polanski is a free man," he said. "But I cannot exclude that this situation will affect his decisions as to visiting Poland."

Paris-born Polanski, 83, has Polish and French citizenship. He lives in Paris but often visits Poland, where he is popular and is preparing to make a film.

Polanski's artistic output is deeply admired in Poland, where he spent his World War II childhood and later went into filmmaking. His mother died at the Auschwitz death camp.

The filmmaker's movements are restricted by an Interpol warrant in effect in 188 countries, but he has avoided extradition by traveling only between France, Poland and Switzerland, which in 2011 rejected a U.S. request to extradite Polanski. Ziobro's move could now make Poland a risky destination for him.

Polanski won an Academy Award for best director for his 2002 film "The Pianist," which he filmed in Warsaw, and was nominated for his 1970s movies "Chinatown" and "Tess."

here are the articles the LA TImes article is based on, from the Associated Press https://www.apnews.com/ecd3f8954bab4c73b21056bfb8ec02e5/German-woman-says-Polanski-sexually-assaulted-her-in-1972 and New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/movies/roman-polanski-rape-accusation.html

Look at the title of this thread! Saying “shame on Switzerland” for arresting Polanski.

I didn’t mean they necessarily defended his rape. I meant they defended his remaining a free man, not having to be imprisoned for his crimes. What else can be interpreted from the words “Polanski in jail / shame on Switzerland”?

I just think that the law should apply equally to everyone. The fact that so many celebrities, people in the film industry, were signing petitions for Polanski is despicable. Being an artist shouldn’t change how the law treats you, for better or worse.

I just think that the law should apply equally to everyone. The fact that so many celebrities, people in the film industry, were signing petitions for Polanski is despicable. Being an artist shouldn’t change how the law treats you, for better or worse.

I just think that the law should apply equally to everyone. The fact that so many celebrities, people in the film industry, were signing petitions for Polanski is despicable. Being an artist shouldn’t change how the law treats you, for better or worse.

Well anybody who knows a little bit about the Polanski case knows that theso-called "law" in LA at the time (i.e. a certain judge) of his "trial" was worth even lessthan the current "president" of the USA.Anybody with a brain attached to the body would have fled the country.

Well anybody who knows a little bit about the Polanski case knows that theso-called "law" in LA at the time (i.e. a certain judge) of his "trial" was worth even lessthan the current "president" of the USA.Anybody with a brain attached to the body would have fled the country.

I am not focusing on his fleeing, but on his horrific crime of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-hollywood-decided-mel-gibson-was-safe-again-1510250284When Hollywood Decided Mel Gibson Was Safe AgainErich Schwartzel and Ben FritzThe Wall Street JournalLast Sunday, a little more than 11 years after the obituary for his career was written, Mel Gibson stepped out of a black SUV to a crowd of fans screaming his name.

Once persona non grata in Hollywood for making anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic remarks, Mr. Gibson walked the red carpet for his first starring role in a major studio movie in 15 years with “Daddy’s Home 2,” Paramount Pictures’ sequel to the family-friendly 2015 hit. It opens Friday.

In February, Mr. Gibson attended the Academy Awards as a nominee for best director for the war movie “Hacksaw Ridge.” After seven years without an agent, he signed in January with Creative Artists Agency, a prestigious home for Hollywood talent. And Warner Bros. considered him to direct “Suicide Squad 2,” a big budget superhero sequel that’s as mainstream as the movie industry gets.

For Mr. Gibson, the 61-year-old star known for “Braveheart” and “The Passion of the Christ,” it’s almost as if the past 11 years never happened.

Such a turnaround was unfathomable in 2006, when the actor’s anti-Semitic remarks led his industry to shun him. Superagent Ari Emanuel called for a boycott of the actor, saying, “There are times in history when standing up against bigotry and racism is more important than money.”

Several major actors’, directors’ and producers’ reputations have recently cratered following allegations of sexual harassment and assault. Meanwhile, Mr. Gibson—once a pariah—is experiencing a career revitalization. Sunday’s premiere followed 11 years of work on the fringes of the mainstream entertainment industry, rebuilding his reputation with what associates describe as a newfound humility and relying on the support of friend Jodie Foster to help secure the “Daddy’s Home 2” role.

Talent agents, stars and studio chiefs are trying to discern the half-life of the radioactivity now tainting other disgraced figures—a calculation Mr. Gibson and his associates had to make time and again over the years.

A spokesman for Mr. Gibson said the actor wasn’t available for comment.

Mr. Gibson’s downfall began in 2006, when his Lexus was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy for driving 87 miles an hour, nearly double the speed limit. Mr. Gibson, who had an open bottle of tequila in the car and a blood-alcohol rate well above the legal limit, told the deputy: “The Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world.”

The statements caused an uproar and Mr. Gibson immediately lost projects. At the time, he described the incident as “despicable behavior.” He pleaded no contest to the charge and received probation.

Since his arrival in Hollywood in the 1980s, Mr. Gibson had been a top box-office draw in franchises like “Lethal Weapon” and hits like “What Women Want.” As a director, he had even more success, winning best-picture and best-director Oscars for 1995’s “Braveheart” and creating “The Passion of the Christ,” a 2004 biblical drama that grossed $612 million world-wide.

Following his arrest, Mr. Gibson met with Jewish leaders and apologized. Hollywood would have none of it. “Obscurity would be the most fitting punishment for the man,” read an editorial in the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Gibson disappeared for a long stretch, not popping up until 2010 in “Edge of Darkness,” an action thriller financed by independent backers that collected $81 million world-wide, a respectable sum but hardly the windfall many of his previous films had generated.

Any goodwill the movie created was wiped out that July, when a recording leaked of a phone call between Mr. Gibson and his then-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva. On the call, Mr. Gibson says if Ms. Grigorieva were “raped by a pack of n-----s,” she would be to blame. Mr. Gibson’s agent at William Morris Endeavor dropped the actor. He also pleaded no contest to a charge of misdemeanor battery of Ms. Grigorieva and was placed on probation.

“It’s one terribly, awful moment in time, said to one person, in the span of one day and doesn’t represent what I truly believe or how I’ve treated people my entire life,” Mr. Gibson said in an interview following the leak.

One year later, Jodie Foster cast him in a movie she was directing, “The Beaver.” The drama, about a depressed man trying to get his life back on track with the help of a beaver puppet, flopped.

Direct-to-video B-movies—Hollywood’s equivalent of the bush leagues—were about all the actor could do, since he was too tainted for a major studio to touch.

After director Robert Rodriguez cast him in the 2013 sequel “Machete Kills,” studios in the U.S. and abroad said they didn’t want a Mel Gibson movie.

“There were a number of countries where the CEOs of the companies were so upset with whatever he said, whether it be about women or Jews, they would just refuse the movie,” said “Machete Kills” producer Sergei Bespalov.

In the U.S., “Machete Kills” ended up going to the small independent studio Open Road Films. It grossed $8 million domestically, less than a third of the original’s gross.

But Mr. Gibson’s most crucial move in saving his career came last year, when he moved back behind the camera. He directed “Hacksaw Ridge,” the World War II drama about a conscientious objector persecuted for his beliefs.

Mainstream Hollywood studios still wouldn’t touch the disgraced star. Producer Bill Mechanic said he cobbled together a $42 million budget from sales to foreign distributors, private financiers and a tax credit from Australia, where the movie was shot.

“Mel was always the right guy,” Mr. Mechanic said. “Especially because the movie was about forgiveness and acceptance.”

In the U.S., independent studio Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. agreed to release “Hacksaw,” but only through a deal where it didn’t invest any money.

But when the movie succeeded at the box office and earned Mr. Gibson his Oscar nomination, he became palatable to a wider swath of Hollywood.

CAA signed Mr. Gibson in January, after some internal debate. Agents felt confident Mr. Gibson had redeemed himself personally and was once one of Hollywood’s most in-demand directors, a person close to the agency said.

For “Daddy’s Home 2,” Mr. Gibson hadn’t been on Paramount’s radar for the role of an estranged grandfather who tries to reconcile his relationship with his son, played by Mark Wahlberg. But the movie’s writers, Sean Anders and John Morris, thought Mr. Gibson was perfect for the part: He was believably intimidating, rough around the edges but still able to charm, Mr. Anders said.

Before the duo approached Mr. Gibson, they looked into his rehabilitation efforts. Mr. Anders read an interview with Ms. Foster in which the well-regarded actress vouched for him. Mr. Gibson has publicly apologized for the outbursts, but most of his career rehabilitation efforts have occurred behind the scenes. Mr. Anders said the outbursts didn’t come up with the actor when they discussed his “Daddy’s Home 2” hiring. “He knows. We know,” he said.

Paramount executives endorsed the idea in part because of the success of “Hacksaw,” said a person close to the studio.

In “Daddy’s Home 2,” Mr. Gibson riffs on his former Hollywood persona as the coarse foil to John Lithgow’s goody-two-shoes grandpa. Mr. Gibson’s Kurt is a womanizer who tells dead-prostitute jokes to children, teaches a young girl to shoot a rifle and offers his grandson the following advice on what to do after kissing a crush: “Smack her on the caboose and tell her what a lucky girl she is.”

Heather Marsee, a 34-year-old stay-at-home mom in Imperial, Mo., loved the first “Daddy’s Home” but is skipping the sequel.

“Mel Gibson is a racist anti-Semite. I refuse to watch any movie involving him,” she said.

But in one telling sign, the value of Mr. Gibson’s signature has rebounded after plummeting following his arrest.

His autograph sells for about $350 these days, said one Los Angeles-based dealer at the “Daddy’s Home 2” premiere. Mr. Wahlberg’s goes for about $50.

Before the premiere, “I had a ton of people begging me for Mel,” the dealer said. “A lot of America is forgiving.”

Write to Erich Schwartzel at erich.schwartzel@wsj.com and Ben Fritz at ben.fritz@wsj.com